Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV27241, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27241    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant Patrick James Washington (“Defendant”) propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, on Plaintiff Fernando Pachecho Hernandez (“Defendant”) on March 10, 2022.  To date, despite attempts to meet and confer, Plaintiff has not served responses.  Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Defendant’s motions are unopposed and granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within ten days.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).)

Sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds that the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,500 against Plaintiff.  Defendant, however, does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Plaintiff personally.  Rather, Defendant’s evidence shows that the discovery and meet and confer communications were served on Plaintiff’s counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide any reason for the lack of responses.  No sanctions are requested against Plaintiff’s counsel, and no sanctions are awarded.

            As a final note, the court realizes that Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery is actually three motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, (b) motion to compel special interrogatories, set one, and (c) motion to compel demand for production of documents, set one.  In the future, moving party is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees.  Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.  Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any objection by Plaintiff and lack of any showing of prejudice, the court will exercise its discretion to hear all three motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $120 in filing fees (2 motions filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee). 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 28^th day of July 2022